Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03514-06
Original file (03514-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         • /      WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 1 00

                                                      HD
Docket No. 03514-06
11 December 2006











This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, consideredyour application on7 December 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 August 2006, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board noted the contested fitness report did not mention your nonpunitive letter of caution. The Board was unable to find the report of issue was in lieu of disciplinary action, or that you were denied any procedural rights concerning the investigation of which you were the subject. The supporting statements you provided, while commendatory, did not persuade the Board that the contested fitness report was erroneous or unjust. In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.




It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,



W.       DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director





Enclosure





























DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSO NNEL COMMAND
         MILLJNGTON TN 38055~0000         1610
         PERS 311
         28 August 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3LC2)



Ref:     (a) BUPERS1NST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

End:     (1) BCNR File 03514-06

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 22 August 2003 to 13 February 2004.

2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a.       A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file. It is signed by the member and the reporting senior on 12 February 2004. The member acknowledged the contents of the report and his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that he intended to make a statement; however, a statement was not submitted.

b.       The report in question is a Detachment of Individual/Concurrent-Regular report. The member requests the removal of the fitness report due to the comments listed by the reporting senior.

c.       The report is a valid report.

d.       The report in question states the following in block 41, Comments on Performance:
conduct and military bearing were significantly below standards and the expectations of a naval officer because of his involvement in an inappropriate relationship with an enlisted Sailor’s spouse.”

Reference (a), annex N, page N-5, subparagraph N-13 (a) Commenting on Misconduct Generally, specifically addresses how and when a reporting senior must document details of
misconduct in a member’s performance evaluation report. It allows reporting seniors to ‘include comments on misconduct whenever the facts are clearly established to the reporting senior’s
satisfaction’. The fitness report was accurately prepared and submitted by the reporting senior in
accordance with reference (a). Additionally, although enclosure (1) provides a copy of the
investigative report, the reporting senior made no mention of it; and nor was he required to do so. The fitness report was accurately prepared and submitted by the reporting senior in accordance with reference (a).

e.       The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his/her command and determine what material will be included in a fitness report. The comments and performance trait marks assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting senior. The evaluation of a member’s performance and making recommendations concerning suitability for advancement and assignments are the responsibility of the reporting senior.

f. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or3ln error.

3.       We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.





By direction


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09261-06

    Original file (09261-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 February 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The fitness report in block 29, does not include time served as a Sales Officer, enclosure (1) has appointment letter as a Helicopter Control officer...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08091-02

    Original file (08091-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The reporting senior states the member was issued a Letter of Instruction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10863-06

    Original file (10863-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board was likewise unable to find the reporting senior lacked sufficient basis for his finding that you had engaged in “inappropriate conduct.” On the contrary, your statement in reply to the contested fitness report revealed that the reporting senior had “received a letter from a woman [you] had been dating alleging harassment.” In view of the above, your application has been denied.The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. “Recently counseled for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11010-06

    Original file (11010-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:11010-0625 January 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 24 June to 31 December 2003 by removing the following from section I (reporting senior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09715-06

    Original file (09715-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MOO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to considerpetition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20040511 to 20040802 (FD) was requested. The petitioner was correct in saying that he was not able to directly confront the reporting senior on the adversity because his parent command ( 4 t~~ MEB) chose not to send him back to Columbia.However, he was afforded the opportunity to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03

    Original file (07244-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07

    Original file (01458-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 March 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11211-07

    Original file (11211-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your fax letter dated 20 February 2008.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 16 September 2005 to 14 August 2006, the Board agreed with you that the reporting senior failed to provide the required narrative justification for the adverse marks assigned. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06

    Original file (10160-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...